Polygamy and polyandry and other mixes

[SoulRaven]

I think people are making the wrong arguments and for the wrong reasons...

I think all members of a household, regardless of age or marital status should be considered a family if that's what they wish. If one working member has insurance, it should cover whoever he/she considers family.

Or even just let us choose who we want to consider family, whether they all live under one roof or not. Maybe you have one cousin in another town, that you want considered to be your family, or maybe even an unrelated neighbor or coworker.

My view isn't about the special interest groups, it's about making the lives of everybody better. We can choose our own version of a family in real life, it just has no legal standing. Give it that legal standing as far as any benefits or insurance goes.

 

[Seraphim]

Preaching to the choir, bro.  I've read everything Heinlein ever wrote, including his 50s travelogue, TRAMP ROYALE and his posthumous GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE.

Regards
John

I take a very different view of the marriage and it's "contract." Since the rise of domestication and civilization people abandoned the tribes and seperated and moved onto small parcels of land. Women stopped being equal contributors and became property.

Marriage wasn;t a contract between the husband and bride, it was between the woman's father and the grooms father to transfer ownership of the female from one to the other.   There are lots of places in the world today where it is still exactly that.

Today we like to think we are enlightened and that is long since gone, but there is a remnant that lives on in most of our brains.

Christians say they hate gay marriage because the Bible tells them to, but the truth is they see it as a threat to their ownership over women, which is just as fundamental a Bible truth as Sodomites are going to hell.

"Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wfe!" Why? Because she is his property and you would be a thief.
It used to be standard in every marriage vows was the wifes promise to "Love and obey" like the property she is
Why does the brides father give her away? he's delivering the property to the new owner.
Why does the grooms father pay for the wedding? new cattle are expensive.
Why has it been perfectly fine in most places to beat your wife, but not another woman. You can only beat your own property but not another mans.

Polygamy is no more than collecting a herd of cattle. You just write up a new contract.

The roots of marriage are dehumanizing women. It should be made illegal.
Bob

You also make the assumption that all polygamous families will be one man and multiple women. Seems to me you are locked into the very definition of ownership you rail against.  And what about all the gay rights people ranting about the freedom to marry whom you want? Want if someone wants to marry multiple people, regardless of gender? You can't claim freedom for one group while denying it for another - that's hypocrisy.

You, who were married, now don't like marriage.  That's fine. What gives you the right to limit how others wish live? How does that jibe with all your comments of personal freedom, which this site is built upon?

Marriage offers numerous advantages. While your 'properly' comments were at one time valid, and there are still men who believes a marriage contract gives them rights over their wives, that same contract offered protection to a woman from being deserted, who would have no opportunity to make a living on her own. It provided safety for her children, at least until they were old enough to fend for themselves. Yes, there were abuses, just as there abuses today, and in areas more than that of marriage.

Many people today still marry for financial security rather than romantic love. If they are unhappy, that was their choice. In the US, they can end the relationship. Many don't, because they would rather to be financially secure than happy. I'm being a bit simplistic, and I know it's extremely difficult at times to leave an abusive relatinship, but that has nothing to do with polygamy.  An abusive spouse will be abusive in a monogamous marriage. In a polygamous situation, the abuser's victim may get support from the other spouses.  They can potentially gang up on the abuser.

Sorry Bob - your opinion on the nastiness of marriage holds no water.  We either all have freedoms, or none of us is free.

 

[Seraphim]

I think people are making the wrong arguments and for the wrong reasons...

I think all members of a household, regardless of age or marital status should be considered a family if that's what they wish.  If one working member has insurance, it should cover whoever he/she considers family.

Or even just let us choose who we want to consider family, whether they all live under one roof or not.  Maybe you have one cousin in another town, that you want considered to be your family, or maybe even an unrelated neighbor or coworker.

My view isn't about the special interest groups, it's about making the lives of everybody better.  We can choose our own version of a family in real life, it just has no legal standing.  Give it that legal standing as far as any benefits or insurance goes.

There you go. Same argument made for gay rights...

 

[Seraphim]

One more thought, Bob.

What if three gay men wanted to marry. How would your women as property argument, now that gay marriage has been deemed legal, hold up there?

 

[Seraphim]

The door to alternate forms of marriage, from the past accepted norm, has been opened, and can't now be closed. Will hypocrisy prevail?

 

[gcal]

It's not an either/or thing, guys. Human biology is what it is and complicates things both ways. Women are smaller and weaker (statistically speaking). Up until quite recently, they had either no safe control over their reproduction or very limited control. Hunting is dangerous. So are predators - including other human groups. Territory had to be held and defended. So, very early, men took on the hunting and protecting roles.

Women, however, held the future of their tribe in their persons. In most hunter gather cultures, gathering still provides more food than hunting and is usually the function of women and children. Women were the life of the tribe. Without a critical number of breeding aged women, the tribe was dead. Without some women who were past breeding age, younger women would have no one to babysit while they did what gathered food and firewood. Each member personally knew each other member.

That's all wired in our brains. Throughout most of history, women's rights and value stayed in that mode, fluxuating with how much the culture needed more children. So has our attitudes towards women's sexuality.

Then came reliable birth control and safe abortion. Women were no longer slaves to biology in the way they had been for millenia. Things have changed everywhere women have gained that control. Our brains are still trying to cope with it.

 

[GotSmart]

Does anyone remember Paint Your Wagon?   Two gold miners bought a extra wife from a Mormon.  They reasoned that if one man could have two wives, One woman could have two husbands.

Partners!  She ran the home, they brought in the gold.

 

[Seraphim]

"That's all wired in our brains. Throughout most of history, women's rights and value stayed in that mode, fluxuating with how much the culture needed more children. So has our attitudes towards women's sexuality. "

It's not wired it in the brain. It's taught; sometimes consciously often times unconsciously, but it's learned ideology all the same. What's learned can be unlearned.

 

[Seraphim]

Does anyone remember Paint Your Wagon?   Two gold miners bought a extra wife from a Mormon.  They reasoned that if one man could have two wives, One woman could have two husbands.

Partners!  She ran the home, they brought in the gold.

But you saw how it ended when 'civilized people' arrived. When the environment changed, learned behavior took over, and she felt she had to conform.

 

[GotSmart]

But you saw how it ended when 'civilized people' arrived. When the environment changed, learned behavior took over, and she felt she had to conform.

The first thing you know~~~

 

[gcal]

"That's all wired in our brains. Throughout most of history, women's rights and value stayed in that mode, fluxuating with how much the culture needed more children. So has our attitudes towards women's sexuality. "

It's not wired it in the brain. It's taught; sometimes consciously often times unconsciously, but it's learned ideology all the same. What's learned can be unlearned.

Given the behavior of our closest relatives and hormone level studies in our ow species and others, I have to disagree with you. There may be no biological reason for current  levels of mysogyny. But any ancestral males that did instinctively guard and protect their personal females, young, and territory would not have them very long.

 

[gcal]

But you saw how it ended when 'civilized people' arrived. When the environment changed, learned behavior took over, and she felt she had to conform.

Sure. But if there is not a hard wired instinct regarding male/female relationships,  you will have to explain why so many human cultures (and other ape cultures) are polygamous and why so few are polyandrous when polyandry would have made so much more sense in historic times when childbirth related deaths took a greater toll on the female population. Extra males providing food and protection would have seemed to make practical  sense. But that's  not the way it is or was.

 

[Seraphim]

You are not going to convince me that monogamy, or views on women's sexuality, are instinctive behavior. Your very statement 'personal females' successfully debates the first. The reproductive urge is built into an animals biology, and a lone male will attempt to approach a female whether another male is about or not - unless driven off. The possessiveness is instinctual.

But humans have the ability to think, and our views are not dictated by our urges. But what that has to do with the topic of the legality of polygamy is not clear to me. We have the choice to decide based on reason, there is no reasonable explanation for forbidding polygamy. Note I continue to use the term polygamy - not polygyny. What's fair for the gander is fair for the goose. Just because a particular males ego will not permit him to share his spouse, doesn't mean it should be forbidden for others.

 

[gcal]

You are not going to convince me that monogamy, or views on women's sexuality, are instinctive behavior. Your very statement 'personal females' successfully debates the first. The reproductive urge is built into an animals biology, and a lone male will attempt to approach a female whether another male is about or not - unless driven off.  The possessiveness is instinctual.

But humans have the ability to think, and our views are not dictated by our urges. But what that has to do with the topic of the legality of polygamy is not clear to me.  We have the choice to decide based on reason, there is no reasonable explanation for forbidding polygamy. Note I continue to use the term polygamy - not polygyny.  What's fair for the gander is fair for the goose. Just because a particular males ego will not permit him to share his spouse, doesn't mean it should be forbidden for others.

I did not say monogamy was instinctive. I said the opposite. "Personal females" referred to females in the group to which a male had sexual access. Attitudes towards female sexuality are related to restrictioning male access so that males are only feeding and protecting young who carry those males genes, and, in more current  times, to situations  where overpopulation makes an excess of children undesirable.  You can see these attitudes in the stereotyping and resentment of unmarried women with children on welfare. Birth control and abortion has loosened attitudes  toward sex, but women having children without a male to officially claim those children is still not accepted as normal.

So, you think humans ability to think will overcome instinct and urges? Really? With so much evidence to the contrary exhibited every day, I  don't  know what  to  say  to that.

As far as different styles of marriage, I  couldn't  care less. But a lot of current laws and regulations will have to be addressed before that is possible. Also, it's  not  just  all  about  what  one  person  in a current marriage  wants. The other person in that marriage entered into that contract with the reasonable  expectation of particular  exclusive  rights, benefits and obligations. One of the parties cannot be permitted to arbitrarily change the terms of that contract without the express agreement  of the other partner.

 

[akrvbob]

First, let me make it clear I am only expressing a personal opinion and trying to give others a contrary viewpoint and food for thought.

Do NOT take that as me telling you what to do or taking away your personal freedoms. That's just a silly conclusion.

A book I highly recommend on this subject is Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships.
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813/

They do an excellent job of studying the anthropology and origin (the dawn of) of human sexuality and male-female relationships leading up to marriage bonds. I could go on for hours about their many different examples.

Among their many conclusions is that monogamy was a rarity before the dawn of civilization. Some conclusions:

1) The phrase "It takes a village to raise a child" describes nearly all tribes before domestication when we seperated onto small parcels of land. One man and one woman could NOT possibly raise a child, only a tribe could!! If the woman had sex with many members of the tribe, no one knew who the father was and everyone became responsible to raise the child. They often still pair-mated, but were not exclusively with that one person sexually.

2) The tribe had to have genetic diversity or they became inbred. "Wives" and women freely had sex with passing tribes bringing in new genetic material.

3) Tribal people were together constantly, including sleeping together. That way a lion or hyena could not sneak in and steal away a child nor could the child crawl away unnoticed. With large numbers of people sleeping together and constantly near each other, why are women the noisy ones during sex? That alerted the rest of the males in the tribe that it was her time and she was ready to mate.

4) Why is the human penis shaped the way it is? It literally acts like a plunger and is designed to create a vacuum and pull all the other sperm that is in the vaginal canal out so that his is deposited closest to the egg and his genes will be carried on and not theirs.

5) There were, and still are, tribes that believed that sperm was food for the baby. They believed that one man could not provide enough sperm so every man in the tribe was expected to help feed the baby. The bigger the baby got, the more sperm was needed.

Everything about modern marriage is wrong and contrary to our evolution. No wonder it is such a constant source of misery for so many people.
Bob

 

[Seraphim]

Gcal

You ve just pretty much made the case for polygamy.

Yes, people will have to decide what type to of marriage they want. Many will change their minds afterwards - no different from 'marriage' today. Additions to the family should be joint decisions, like all family decisions should be. Yes, that in itself is normally a problem. There will be breakups, just as there are now when one spouse finds a partner they like better. P reaps when both spouses tire of each other, they'll find it advantageous to add two more people. *shrug* the possibilities are endless.

I really don't expect a great number of people to go polygamous. I won't. Most probably couldn't deal with it, and would stick to old ways. There is still no reason to argue it should be illegal. Some people will make it work, some won't, and many won't try - not for quite a few decades.

Do people use their heads to overcome urges? Yes, all the time; for various reasons. Fear of going to jail, for one. Fear of ones spouse another - which has kept me in line for forty years lol.

Different strokes for different folks - no pun intended.

 

[sushidog]

Scripturally (from Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Sumerian traditions), even Adam had 2 wives. Some records suggest there were two Eves while other accounts state Adam's first wife (who evidently didn't work out) was called Lilith.
http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishculture/a/Where-Does-The-Legend-Of-Lilith-Come-From.htm

I guess marriage was tough back then too.

Chip

 

[wayne49]

There you have it. Polygamy in a nutshell

Forget about any government agency dealing with this, it would be "offensive" to them.

...Only in America.

Research polyamory.

Only in the Bible and the Koran is it one man and multiple women in a patriarchical structure.

In real life it may be one woman and two men. And there can be relations involving all three at the same time. Equal enjoyment. Wrap your head around that idea. All equal partners in the whole relationship.

If two men can "marry" then why should there be a limit to the number of partners in a "marriage".

The marital relationship became the state's business with special tax situations for married partners as opposed to two people who share their lives and property together without a marriage license. Also, with health care benefits defined for married couples, one male and female. Now benefits can be shared with a same sex partner without "marriage." Live as a couple with the opposite sex, No Benefits for you, you hetero freak.

Any two people should be able to form a legal patnership for tax purposes, joint property.

If corporations are people, then people should be either partnerships or corporations as they wish.

Just because practioners of polyamory are not as militant as other special sexual interest groups, do not think that there only a few out there.

 

[Seraphim]

Interesting, Wayne


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

So here are people making it work, some of whom may wish a marital contract, but are denied it for no legal reason. So far, the only reason given here against polygamy is, "it's too complicated..."

 

[GotSmart]

Interesting, Wayne


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

So here are people making it work, some of whom may wish a marital contract, but are denied it for no legal reason.  So far, the only reason given here against polygamy is, "it's too complicated..."

Everything is complicated.  My last marriage was down right confusing.  (and expensive  )

At least I managed to save my kids from her.